PART C -Decisi on under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Mi n is try o f S ocial July 25, 2014 reconsideration decis ion denying the Appellant a crisi servicing a nd r epairs becau se th e Appellan t did not meet all of the requirem E mployment a n d Assistance for Persons w ith Disabilit PART D -Relev a nt Legislation E m p l oymen t and Ass istanc e for Perso ns wi th Disabil EAAT 003(10/06/01) AP Pl=ill H : Development and Soc ial Innovation ( "M inistry") s su pplement to pay for furnace ents in se c t ion 57 of the ies Re gulation. i ties Regulati o n (EAP W DR ) Sect ion 57.
APPEAL II ; PART E -Summarv of Facts With the oral consent of the Appellant, a Ministry observer attended but did not participate in the hearing. In her notice of appeal and in an additional written statement dated August 18, 2014 that she submitted for this appeal, the Appellant wrote that the review process did not include the fact that her shelter costs had increased. At the hearing, the Appellant submitted that the reconsideration decision and her appeal were not restricted to just the Ministry's decision denying her a crisis supplement for her furnace repairs. They should also include her requests for back payments for increased property taxes and for medical transportation. At the hearing, the Ministry responded that the only decision it made in its July 25, 2014 reconsideration decision was its denial of a crisis supplement for the Appellant's furnace bill. The Ministry indicated that the Appellant's shelter costs were increased on July 1, 2014 because of the property tax increase and the Appellant should apply to the Ministry for any future medical transportation needs. The Panel finds that the Ministry's July 25, 2014 reconsideration decision clearly states that it is specific to its denial of crisis supplement assistance for furnace repairs. Therefore, the Panel will summarize only the evidence relevant to that denial of a crisis supplement for the furnace bill. For its reconsideration deci!lion, the Ministry had the following evidence: 1. Information from its records that the Appellant receives disability assistance as a sole recipient. In July 2014 she was receiving the maximum assistance of $906.42 ($375 shelter plus $531.42 support), as well as a $40 diet allowance and a $40 nutritional supplement for vitamins, for a total of $986.42. 2. Invoice dated January 25, 2014 for $136.05 for servicing the Appellant's furnace and replacing a circuit breaker, with a handwritten note that this invoice was paid on February 5, 2014. 3. Fax transmittal dated June 12, 2014 from the Appellant to the Ministry submitting the furnace bill. 4. Fax transmittal dated June 30, 2014 from the Appellant to the Ministry, regarding several matters, including a note that she would like to know why her costs for repairing her furnace this winter was not reimbursed to her. She wrote that the bill was sent in twice to the local Ministry office. 5. Appellant's request for reconsideration dated July 15, 2014 for furnace repairs with her statement that the repair was needed in the cold of winter. Her house was 50 degrees in the morning. She also wrote that she worked most of the day putting wood in (which is expensive as well) to get the temperature up to 66-68 degrees by evening. The electric furnace is and was important. She stated that she did not send the furnace bill in earlier because she was dealing with a medical condition. Also, it was extremely difficult to face the challenges of a cold home in the winter. She referred to an attached fax transmittal dated July 17, 2014 from her to the Ministry. 6. Fax transmittal dated July 17, 2014 supporting her reconsideration request and stating that she phoned the Ministry to find out about reimbursement for the furnace bill. She wrote that anyone facing a big hit with a bill will seek any solution available to gather money to pay the debt and she thought the extra money would be in her July assistance check. The Appellant also stated that she has suffered over the past winter. It was a hard winter, cold with extra increases in power-electric bills, firewood and especially groceries. As for imminent danger to her physical health, she wrote that she is alone. Her property may go up for tax sale and she will be homeless which puts her life in jeopardy and in imminent danger. EAAT003(10/06101)
In the written submis sion s for this appeal , the Appe th e d ocu ments she had faxed for t he r econsideration review. th e A p pellant r e ferred to e vents f rom 2009 t o 2 0 1 1, w appe al. At t he h e ar ing , t he Appell ant said t h at sh e paid t he che ck. She said that she did not send the bill to the Ministry last winter because complic ated. The App ellant also describe d her h ome a removed due to poor repairs and mold. During th e h ome heat ed to 6 8 degrees by using the furnace as well he r financial difficulties, inc l uding how her foo d costs are extremely hi gone up . Pursuant to section 22 ( 4) of the Employment and As test imony regarding the c ond i tion of h er home , the furnace be ing consiste nt wit h and in sup po r t o f t h e e vid enc e Appella nt's o the r t esti m o n y at the hea ring , r e ga rding incident iss u es w i th a m unic ipa li ty r e garding her ta xes and her that testim ony is not relat e d t o the issue of the crisis supplement deci s i on, a nd th erefore does no t admit tha t evid e nce. A t the h earing , the Mi nistry relied on and r eaff irmed E AA T0 03(10/06/01) APPEAL# : l lant wrot e that the Trib un a l had no t received all Whe n ask ed abo u t this at the hea ring , hich were not rel at e d to the decision un de r furnace re pair bill from her February assi st ance it was too s n ot winterized be cause insulat ion h ad t o be pa st winter she worked until 8 p.m . to get her as wo od heat. T h e Appell an t also describ e d g h and her shel ter costs have sistance Act, t he P ane l admits the Appell ant's repai r bil l an d her f ina nc i a l s ituat i o n a s th e Ministry had at r econ sideration . A s for the s tha t o ccu rred in 2009 to 2011, h er me dic al t r ansporta t ion matte r s, the Panel fin ds or the Minist r y 's rec onsid e r a tion i ts r e consideratio n dec ision.
PA RT F -Re as on s for Pa n e l Dec i sion T h e is sue i n t his appeal is wheth er the Ministry reas to pa y for furn ace ser v ic ing and re pairs b e cause the sect ion 57 o f t h e EAP WDR . T he f ollo wing le g i slation is r elevan t to the Ap pel lan EAP WD R 57 (1) T he minist er may pr o vid e a cri sis supplemen t to o r for har d shi p ass istan c e if (a) the fa mi l y unit o r pers on in th e f am il y uni t r equ i r es t he su p unexpec ted l y ne eded a n d is unable to me et the ex pense or obta th e family un it, and (b) the minis te r cons iders tha t failure to meet t he ex pense or obtain (i) i mm i nen t d a nger to th e physi c al h e alt h of a ny p erson in the fa The Parties' P os i tions The M in istr y's posi tion i s the A p pel lant's r e ques t d id not mee suppleme nt. I n i ts reconsideration d ecision, the Mi have b een a n u ne xpe c ted e xp e n s e, th e App ellan t h Th e Appella n t 's p o sitio n is that t h e furn a ce r e p a ir w t h e r esources to p a y for that repai r bec a u s e h e r l ivin th e furn ace in winter w ould have resulte d i n i mminent d The P a nel's Find i n gs and C o nclusio n T he Mini st ry ma y p r ovide a cris is s uppleme n t to a person eligible for disab Appell ant, i f a l l of the requirements in sec tio n 57(1) acknowl edged tha t the Appell ant h ad a n une xpect ed J a nuary 2 0 14. T he ref o re, the fi r st re q u ireme nt f o r a W i th respect to the re qu i remen t t h at there are n o r e expense, t h e P a n el note s that, a lthoug h the App ell ant s admitted that she paid the furnace bill in February 2 M i n i str y fo r r eimbursement u ntil June 2 014. Therefor determined that the Appellant did not e st ab lish that she had no resour unexpected furnace repair expense. As for establishing that the failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will d ang e r t o h er h ealth, t h e Panel f inds t hat t h e Appella Janu ar y 2014 . Howe v er , t h e A pp el lant did no t ask 2014, well afte r her winter he ating needs. A lso, she he a lth wa s i n imminent danger f rom lack of heat i n Janua determined that the Appellant did not mee t this requirement in sect The Panel finds that the Ministry's reconsideration decision denying the Appellant a crisis supplement for her furnace repair bill was reasonably supported by the evidence. Therefore, the Panel confirms t hat decision. EMT003(10/06/01) : APPEAL# onabl y de nie d the Appellant a c risis supplement Appellant did no t meet a ll of th e requ irements i n t's circ u m stanc es i n th is app eal . a fa m ily u nit that i s e ligible for d i s abi l ity a s sista nc e o r plem e nt t o meet an une x p ec ted expe n se or obtain an item i n th e i t em b e cause there a re no r e so u r ces ava i la ble t o th e it em wi ll re s ult i n mi ly un i t. t all o f th e eli gibili ty c rite ria f or a cris is nistr y wrote tha t a lthough the fu r nace repair m a y a d the res ources t o p a y the b i ll withi n 10 days . a s an une xpe c ted expense and she d id not h av e g e xp e n ses have in c r ea s e d . Als o, fail ing to fix a nger to her phy sic al healt h . i l i ty assi stance, such a s the of the E A P WDR are met. The Mini st ry expense when sh e had h e r furn ace re pair ed in c r isis supp l emen t w as sa tisfi ed. s ources available t o pay for t h e unexpected ub mitte d that her li ving c osts i n crea s e d, s h e 01 4. She also d id not s ub mit the inv oic e to the e, t he Pa n e l fi n ds that t he M i n i str y rea sonably ces available to pay for the result in imminent n t needed the f ur nace t o heat her home in f or r eimbu r s emen t fr o m t he Ministry until June p rovided no medic al evidenc e t hat he r phys ic al r y 2014. T he refore, the Ministry reasonably ion 57(1) (b)(i).
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.